March 11, 2014

LSAC Data and Predicting Number of Applicants for Fall 2014, part 10

The LSAC reports that "As of 3/7/14, there are 288,905 fall 2014 applications submitted by 42,068 applicants. Applicants are down 9.9% and applications are down 10.6% from 2013. Last year at this time, we had 79% of the preliminary final applicant count." If this year's applicants follow last year's pattern, we'll have approximately 53,250 total applicants for the class entering in fall 2014. Dan Filler has some historical data on the first year enrollment from 1964 to 2012 here. I link to some more comprehensive data (going back to the 1940s) here.

My last post in this series is here. Also, on the last post in this series a troll wrote "I think we'll probably get 40K matriculants this year and will then see a steady uptick starting next year." That led someone to write elsewhere that "Nothing makes me want to simultaneously projectile vomit and strangle people as much as the comments on the Faculty Lounge. ... It's like reading an optimistic Bear Stearns report in 2008. Delusional nitwits who are sad their little gravy train ride is coming to an end." Just to be clear, that was a troll who was writing about 40,000 first years this coming year, not one of our usual commentators (even one of our usual critical commentators).

I'm going to closely monitor the comments.

Update: The LSAC has just released the February 2014 administration figures. They are up slightly from February 2013. I think it's way too early to draw much in the way of inferences from this new data point. We are still down 6.2% in administrations over last year. I appreciate the restraint in the comments on the original post; please continue to be restrained in the comments now.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm going with 50,000 total applicants and 32,000 total matrics.

Basis for this forecast:

- Last data was 2/28, and a lot of schools have 3/1 official deadlines. (I know that many are soft deadlines, but still). I suspect that the uptick reflects applicants submitting right before 3/1 deadlines.

- Note that at this time last year we had 84 percent of total application count.

- The low hanging fruit was picked last year. I find it hard to believe that more than another 7,000 to 8,000 students will apply between now and August 1, and I really can't see another 11,000 doing so.

- Students just got their February LSAT scores. We should get the official totals in the next week. Assuming only 17,000 to 19,000 took the test, I can't see more than half applying for entry this term, and I suspect that a lot of those takers are re-takes.

- The U.S. News data really shakes things up and the 9 month employment figures come out soon. I think a lot of 0Ls are being more careful about debt.

- Admission rates to some law school are going to approach 85 percent. If law school is open admission, the status and prestige goes away. Fewer people want to join a club with open membership.

I've asked this question before, in various ways.
Assume 200 ABA accredited law schools, with an average first year class size of 200. That means that 40,000 enrollments would fill all the seats.
Now, assume that the highest rated 100 schools fill an average of 250 first year seats. That would remove 25,000 from 40,000, leaving 15,000 for the remaining 100 schools, or, an average of 150 seats per school.
Now, assume 30,000 enrollees and the same number of first year seats filled for the highest rated 100 schools.
Would only 5,000 remain for the 100 lower rated schools?

I guess the question is: If the highest rated schools can skim the pool and fill all seats with no hit to the profile of the pool of enrollees, why not do it? Why take a revenue loss when such loss is unnecessary?
That means that Harvard, for example, may fill 600 or more seats, with top notch enrollees. And so forth.
That may leave the lowest rated schools competing for a pool of applicants so poorly credentialed, and with such low predictors of success in law school and on the bar exam (leaving aside prospects for legal employment), that it would be potentially in violation of fed lending requirements to enroll these applicants.
In addition, looking down the road a few years, if schools basically open the doors to all applicants, then those schools may suffer reputation costs of enormous proportions.
We all know, one supposes, how poorly many law students write. And, even many well-qualified and brilliant law students find the ability to engage in legal reasoning challenging.
One shudders to think how much worse these conditions can become by admitting at fifty or more of the ABA accredited law schools persons whose GPA and LSAT scores predict little likelihood of success in law school, on the bar, and in legal employment.
In a very real sense, law schools owe a duty to the persons admitted (who will be encouraged to take on enormous debt), to the taxpayers footing those bills, and to the public at large, already poorly served because of the failure of law schools to respond to changing needs for legal services.
Some actions need to be considered before the decision about continuing for many law schools in no longer in their own hands.

I tend to think that next year's 1Ls will number in the mid to low 30,000s. I do think that one reason that application percentages are rising is that students have much better information than they did year ago as to admission standards. Transparency is good. A lot of non T-14 schools are going to have to reduce enrollment. Far better to plan for it.

To some degree I think the top schools do have a non-financial interest in maintaining their current share of total student enrollment and thus lowering their enrollment as total enrollment declines. Law school pedigree is a relational good. Churning out Harvard, Yale, Stanford grads is worth more if they make up less of the total pie.

And if you want to turn this into a financial interest because you're that sort, this sort of pedigree/prestige concern is often on the minds of potential donors.

retiel
Interesting thoughts. One preliminary note: Yale has a relatively small class.
As for prestige, the selectivity at the top tier need not change that much.
The problem becomes acute in the lower tiers when the top tier has absorbed so many of the qualified applicants that, in this game of musical chairs, the remaining schools find themselves with no seats.
What then?
Reducing admissions at top tier schools won't solve it. First, the drop off is most acute with respect to the better qualified candidates. Second, a person qualified to enter HSY who is not admitted to a top tier law school will not be attending an unranked law school.

Vijay -- I meant that over the course of several years, information has improved. As to who is now going to law school, I would be interested to see what average debt figures look like. My guess is that other than the T14, more and more it is kids whose families don't mind paying (yes there are some of those) or kids getting substantial tuition reductions (or grants, whatever you want to call it). And I do think that kids are more attuned to grant situation.

On a separate note, as to February LSAT takes showing a slight increase over last year, I would attribute some of that to some test centers being closed in December for weather reasons.